Posted on 12/01/2007 11:32:43 AM PST by Jim Robinson
BLUFFTON, S.C. (AP) -- Republican White House hopeful Rudy Giuliani said Friday he wouldn't try to change laws that make citizens of children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants, noting that it's a matter determined by the Constitution.
"That's a very delicate balance that's been arrived at, and I wouldn't change that," Giuliani said in response to a question while campaigning at Sun City Hilton Head, a sprawling retirement community down the South Carolina coast from Charleston.
(Excerpt) Read more at breakingnews.nypost.com:80 ...
.http://www.heritage.org/research/legalissues/lm18.cfm
Those involved in this case were resident aliens. Illegals have not yet been scrutinized by the court.
Why doesn't Mexico take care of its own people? Why don't the ultra-wealthy Mexican elites help to pay for the health care and education etc of their own poor? Why do they instead encourage their poor to leave Mexico and invade the United States? Nature provides a parallel that is instructive.
Some species of birds thrive not by carefully rearing their own young, but by pawning that task off on adults of other species. The European Cuckoo, whose distinctive call is immortalized in the sound of the "cuckoo clock," is the bird in which this habit has been most thoroughly studied. Female European Cuckoos lay their eggs only in the nests of other species of birds. A cuckoo egg usually closely mimics the eggs of the host (one of whose eggs is often removed by the cuckoo).
The host may recognize the intruding egg and abandon the nest, or it may incubate and hatch the cuckoo egg. Shortly after hatching, the young European Cuckoo, using a scoop-like depression on its back, instinctively shoves over the edge of the nest any solid object that it contacts. With the disappearance of their eggs and rightful young, the foster parents are free to devote all of their care to the young cuckoo. Frequently this is an awesome task, since the cuckoo chick often grows much larger than the host adults long before it can care for itself. One of the tragicomic scenes in nature is a pair of small foster parents working like Sisyphus to keep up with the voracious appetite of an outsized young cuckoo.
That is the British Common Law that the founders dismissed outright. The idea of everyone belonging to the crown was just a bit much for them.
Go to the actual amendment (don’t pass over the ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ phrase) and read what the originators of the amendment have to say about it in their own words. If you are honest, you will clearly see that you are wrong.
Edwin Meese III has a book out that provides information and background on the entire Constitution, including the Fourteenth Amendment. It is I believe “The Heritage Foundation Guide to the Constitution” by Edwin Meese III of the Heritage Foundation. Read in particular pages 384 and 385. I was able to find this online with Google book search.
“You have every right to choose him, but if he is nominated you better figure on getting him elected without a huge chunk of conservative Republicans.”
Speak for yourself. I’d vote for him over Rudy, McCain or Huckabee in a nano second. A Guiliani/Huckabee ticket would be a disaster as far as any immigration issues. Both are pro-immigration while trying to couch their viewpoints in moderate rhetoric. What a deadly duo these two would be.
But he has no problem trying to subvert the Constitution with numerous 2nd Amendment restrictions when it comes to gun ownership. Unbelievable.
Giuliani is so liberal it is sickening.
“They won’t be of any benefit, only a liability”
“squirt out their babies”.
Feelings...nothing more than feelings....
I like the idea of the American constitution. It’s not a “living” document and it is written in plain language.
There was no such thing as “illegal” aliens at that time except under state laws.
Then by your own admission the problem of illegal aliens (non resident aliens) has not been addressed by the Supreme Court yet. It obviously was not handled by the Fourteenth Amendment or the Civil Rights act of 1866 as some have erroneously stated since both were written solely to give citizenship to black slaves who certainly were residents of the United States.
Good example Travis!!
BUMP
Follow along on Reply 28, Penowa. Contracts with the IRS won’t make the cut.
The author points out US v Wong Kim Ark is the law of the law and this piece rails against current law. Again as I mentioned before if you want to overturn this you have to get a court to agree with you. Good luck with that. The law and practice of the federal government since that ruling has clearly been on the side of a simple reading of the amendment. I wish the government would see all the other amendments in the same light. The author tries to make an odd point that there’s a redundancy. Yet, he contradicts himself and makes it obvious that there is no redundancy because the Supreme court has accepted that there are exceptions to citizenship even for people born here. Because there are listed exceptions to citizenship to those born on US soil, “Subject to the jurisdiction” cannot be redundant to “anyone born in the US” because the later case does not exist.
That sentence and silly putty have a lot in common.
Are you attempting to address the legal argument of, "John C. Eastman, Ph.D., is Professor of Law at Chapman University School of Law and Director of The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence", are not. You may just be having a silly putty moment, because your prior argument of the 14th is bogus.
The law was written without reference to legal or illegal aliens. The states controlled immigration in those days. So no the constitution doesn’t address a condition that didn’t exist at the time. That’s my point. To claim that the law doesn’t say what it says due to a modern day problem is to add something there without going through the appropriate process. There are accepted exceptions in the court decisions and legality of parents is not one of them. In order to make your argument law you will have to overturn case law and federal practice since the 19th century.
BTW the framers of the 14th knew they were addressing the citizenship status of more than black people:
“May 30 began with Senator Howard proposing to add the citizenship clause to § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment as follows: “All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.”[138] This language was designed to settle the issue raised in Dred Scott — that is, who are citizens and thus have the bundle of rights appertaining to citizenship. After a raucous debate over making Indians, coolies, and gypsies citizens, the Senate passed Howard’s language.[139]”
http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm
Well you have your appeal to authority. John C. Eastman, Ph.D. versus the Supreme court. Guess whose opinion counts as law...
NO.
The problems with illegal aliens is simple - deport them. It can be done directly and indirectly. Eisenhower deport them. Iran has deported them. This country is being invaded and politicians claim there are too many of them so we must surrender and on top of it provide them with perks. That borders on treason.
Rudy- it was nice knowing you.
Won’t be getting my vote, pal.
The federal laws regarding htis issue have been bent beyond belief.
I don’t want to be hustled by an “illegal born here” any more than I want to be hustled by an “illegal born elsewhere” who invaded.
For the candidates who are living in a virtual ivory tower compared to the rest of us, this is a very hot issue.
I am tired of being “served” by people who cannot speak English. They make me really nervous, and I always wonder what is going on in the kitchen behind my back. Since the Illegal Invaders marched in Los Angeles and chanted for their “rights”, I have not purchased anything that even remotely connects with Mexico if I knew the origin. No tacos-no Mexican restaurants- nothing. I have walked out of stores which obviously have questionable people behind the counter. Don’t need to make multiple trips to get something simple because they don’t/won’t speak nor read English.
Number of Illegal Aliens in the Country 20,807,645”
I think this is wrong be at least 50%, which would make all the other figures too low.
The link posted has a counter that keeps changing as you watch it.
It also changes for the cash wire transfers to Mexico.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.